Minutes
Broadband Access Infrastructure Board
July 14, 2005
Minutes
In Attendance (please provide corrections):
Pat Scully
Sam Elowitch
Janet Yancey-Wrona
Steve Ward
Phil Lindley
Chris Johnson
Peter Reilly
Reggie Palmer
Gerry Dube
Kathleen Case
Lance Bell from Time Warner
Michael Tompkins (for Brian Paul) from Oxford Networks
Brian Webber
James Sanborn
Tony Vigue (from South Portland Community Television)
Administrative Notes
- The Board agreed that much of the subcommittee work (especially the Service Availability Subcommittee, the Technology and Delivery Mechanisms Subcommittee and the Regulatory and Financial Assessment Subcommittee, the so-called “first 3”) will have to go in parallel and that some committee overlap may be beneficial.
- It was agreed that the Chairs of the first three sub-committees will also serve on the Expansion Plan (a.k.a “the fourth”) Subcommittee. It was also agreed that any member of the larger board (or the public) is welcome to attend any/all meetings and a schedule of the meetings will be posted on the soon to be developed B.A.I.B web page.
- The Board Members decided that an additional “full Board” meeting near the mid term would be useful. It was scheduled for October 6, 1:30-4:30.
- Phil Lindley and Amy Spelke offered to provide and maintain a web page for the Board to facilitate the exchange of information. There was no objection to the page being hosted by the PUC.
- Phil Lindley offered to contact the SPO for an update on their municipal broadband report (LD 1128, P&SL Chapter 19, Study of Municipal Capabilities to Become Providers of Internet Services).
Results of Brainstorming Session
Pat Scully opened the meeting by asking for any thoughts on the mission as presented in the “Subcommittees and Goals” document that was emailed to the group on July 12. There were no major objections to the document as written.
Potential Goals/Measures
- Possible goals:
- Better service where it already exists
- Some service where there is none.
- “Universal” might not mean every home, but every community.
- Must have at least 2 categories(residential and business).
- Must contain “affordability.”
- Language from 1934 Tel Act on Universal Service.
- When defining the “Measures of Success” we must consider speed and affordability.
- There should be a measure for residential service and business/institutions service. Perhaps the goal should be 100% of all business with access but something slightly less for residential (taking into consideration there will always be a few houses “off the grid”)
- We should consider “near term” and “longer term” goals.
- We could consider incremental goals e.g., % increase penetration by year or speeds by year
- The goal should be a benchmark rather than an absolute percentage. E.g., Maine should be in the top 10 states for broadband access. We should strive for “comparability”
- Infrastructure to the “community” is hard to measure.
- Should we track the growth of expenditures? (answer: data is confidential and proprietary)
- We must also consider demand. Can we measure “enhanced demand”?
- The “take-rate” or take rate increases could be a measure of success
- Whatever we do has to be technology neutral and standard neutral
- Our policy should be to keep Maine on or ahead of the curve of what’s going on elsewhere
- We need incentives for multiple providers
Areas to Consider
- Perhaps we should be looking at the “highways” into the state
When we consider “capacity” we must also consider capacity for growth
Price points are very influential with public. Cost structures can influence the public’s willingness to buy
What are carriers doing outside of Maine?
We need to support economic deficiencies. How do we make Maine more attractive to providers? Market capitalization is much more conservative today versus 10 years ago.
We have to figure out if we have enough carrots for providers
If we don’t have enough carrots, how do we allocate limited public money to get there?
If providers expand offerings over the “pipe” it will increase demand
We have to remember municipal and county governments and how the actions of this board may effect them
Board must anticipate objections that might come from legislative changes
Must consider redundancy and diversity issues
Possible Outcomes
- The State could try to influence demand by offering $ incentives to do transactions on-line.
- The State could also influence demand by highlighting “coolness” factor.
- "Anchor Tenants” (e.g., schools and libraries) have worked in the past.
- Could every laptop come with a broadband connection?
- The state could provide initiatives to promote new anchor tenants: promoting telecommuting will reduce pollution.
- Consider “demand aggregation” policies. Rate per unit may go down but total expenditures per customer may go up or total customers may go up.
Areas of general consensus from our discussion last week on "what is success?"
- Success for residential customers should be a different measure than for business/large users.
- 100% universal coverage may not be possible for residentials, but a very high "near universal" standard, such as 98%. Higher standard for "universal" for business/large users.
- There may be no fixed standard we can identify for appropriate availability and bandwidth; it may make sense to describe it through some form of a benchmark or a comparison to what is available in other states or to urban areas. But is there a "minimum" bandwidth or floor that we can identify for 2010? Again, one standard for residential, another for large users.
- Success is also defined by incenting demand for broadband services, such as through encouraging telecommuting, landing "anchor tenant" users.
- Affordability and take rates are other measures of success.
- Success may also be measured by how much we create incentives for providers to invest and remove existing impediments to investment.
